You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Four Reasons Why Assisted Dying Should Not Be Offered for Depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9759-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Blikshavn, Tonje Lossius Husum, Morten Magelssen |
| Abstract |
Recently, several authors have argued that assisted dying may be ethically appropriate when requested by a person who suffers from serious depression unresponsive to treatment. We here present four arguments to the contrary. First, the arguments made by proponents of assisted dying rely on notions of "treatment-resistant depression" that are problematic. Second, an individual patient suffering from depression may not be justified in believing that chances of recovery are minimal. Third, the therapeutic significance of hope must be acknowledged; when mental healthcare opens up the door to admitting hopelessness, there is a danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally, proponents of assisted dying in mental healthcare overlook the dangers posed to mental-health services by the institutionalization of assisted dying. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Mexico | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 29% |
| Psychology | 12 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,822,448
of 24,527,525 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#122
of 640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,277
of 429,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.